Paleosols: digging deeper buries ‘challenge’ to Flood geology

Summary

Paleosols are a favourite objection used against the global Flood and the 6,000-year
biblical age of the earth. Uniformitarians believe that paleosols (ancient soil
horizons) are common throughout the stratigraphic record. Soils are believed to
take hundreds to thousands of years or more to form and represent periods of earth
history when the area was not covered with water. Thus, it is argued, paleosols
could not have formed in the midst of a global flood. However, when two examples
of alleged paleosols are examined, one in Missouri, USA and the other in Queensland,
Australia, they do not stand up to scrutiny. The loose, friable horizons do not
have the diagnostic characteristics of soils and the interpretation of a paleosol
is inconsistent with the sequence of geological events required. Instead, the field
evidence fits the biblical framework much better than the uniformitarian one. The
soils examined did not form by subaerial weathering over a long time but by in situ
‘weathering’ during and after the global Flood.

One of the favourite objections against the global Flood and the 6,000-year biblical
age of the earth is the claim that ancient soil horizons (paleosols) are common
throughout the stratigraphic record. Soils are considered to have formed on land
from bedrock due to chemical and biological weathering over long periods. The time
envisaged for a soil profile to develop is of the order of hundreds to thousands
of years or more.1 Since soils represent
periods of earth history when the area was not covered with water, paleosols could
not have formed in the midst of a global flood—so the argument goes.

One example of this claim is by Joseph Meert, Assistant Professor of Geology at
the University of Florida, who used a baseball analogy to assert that paleosols
are one strike of ‘three strikes against young-earth creationism’.2 Which he states are an ‘anathema
to young-earth (ye) creationism because they pose such a problem for the concept
of the young earth’.

Meert says:

‘If you look at the photo at the top of the [web] page, you will see an excellent
example of a well-developed paleosol in Missouri. [Reproduced here as Figure 1,
below] The paleosol is developed on a granite dated to 1473 Ma and underneath
the upper Cambrian-age Lamotte sandstone.5 Paleosols are fairly common
features throughout the standard geologic column … Why are paleosols so troubling
for ye-creationism?

‘Ye-creationists assert that the the [sic] geologic record is mainly
a recording of a global Gilgameshian flood (the Hebrews referred to this
myth as the Noachian flood) and that most of the sedimentary rocks observed on earth
resulted from deposition during this flood. Obviously, there is no chance for mature
and thick soils to form during a global tempest such as the flood of Noah. …

‘[Paleosols are] data that clearly refute the notion of a global flood. Paleosols
are ancient soils that develop during periods of extensive sub-areal [sic]
weathering and they are sometimes preserved in the geologic record. The
key is that paleosols are found throughout the geologic column and represent
periods of earth history when the region they were found in WAS NOT covered by water.
Paleosols in the midst of a global flood are not possible’ [emphasis in original].

Clearly Meert considers that paleosols have the potential to refute the global Flood.
We agree! The concept of paleosols provides a good test for any biblical geological
model. That we can use the Bible to develop a geological model that can be scientifically
tested destroys the oft-repeated claim by evolutionists that ‘creation science’
is not science because it cannot be tested. We’re pleased that Meert acknowledges
that biblical geology is a valid, scientific approach. But we do not agree that
the biblical flood has been falsified. Let’s consider the evidence a little
more closely, because we will see a different story.

Figure 1. Alleged ‘paleosol’ located between the Precambrian
Butler Hill Granite and the Cambrian Lamotte Sandstone. Photo taken by Joe Meert
along Missouri State Highway 67 (from Meert).2 (For
an update since the original publishing of this article, see Addendum.)

Clearing up some misconceptions

Before we do, we need to clear up a couple of misconceptions that slipped in without
noticing. First, paleosols are not troubling to young-earth creationists, nor are
they an anathema, as Meert imagines. Froede has published an excellent treatment
on paleosols in the stratigraphic record in his book Field Studies in Flood Geology,3 comparing and contrasting the field
evidence from a uniformitarian and biblical Flood perspective. Also, Klevberg and
Bandy have recently published two articles on soil formation and the biblical Flood.4

Second, Meert links the global Flood of the Bible to the Epic of Gilgamesh—a
flood story recorded on ancient clay tablets excavated from the ruins of Nineveh
more than a hundred years ago.5,6 Parallels with the Bible are obvious but the Gilgamesh
story has clear fictional characteristics such as an ark the shape of a cube, and
rainfall lasting only six days and nights. The tablets are conventionally taken
to be the older version of the two stories, so the biblical record is interpreted
as being derived from the Babylonian one. This not only implies that the biblical
record is fictional, but second rate fiction at that. However, the sheer quality
of the biblical record, including plausible dimensions of the ark7 and the quantity of detail, all described in a sober,
matter-of-fact way, mean that the biblical record is eminently credible. John Woodmorappe
demonstrated that even the smallest particulars are reasonable.8 If we ignore the conventional dates assigned to the epic
(Middle Eastern chronology is currently in a state of flux and dates are being revised
lower9), the more plausible interpretation
is that Noah’s Flood and the Epic of Gilgamesh record the same real event
in history. The biblical record is the accurate, reliable testimony while the Epic
of Gilgamesh is a corrupted version. So, we shouldn’t allow this subtle linkage
to Gilgamesh to distract from a proper consideration of paleosols.

Finally, we need to ignore the million-year ages quoted in the text and written
on the photo. As pointed out on many occasions,10
the rocks do not have ages labelled on them. The ages are an interpretation based
on assumptions about how the rocks formed—assumptions which are unprovable.11,12
You can obtain any age you like depending on the assumptions that you make. Since
they were deposited during the Flood, we would write on the photo that the true
age of both rocks, based on a written eyewitness account, is 4,500 years.

Interpretive frameworks

Now, with regard to ancient soils in the fossil record, it is understandable that
Meert believes paleosols are found throughout the geologic column because the concept
of paleosols is firmly entrenched in uniformitarian thinking. It is simply a logical
application of the uniformitarian framework which takes the processes we see happening
today and extrapolates them into the past without discrimination. There is a voluminous
literature on paleosols,13,14 including numerous books15,16 and courses at university level.17 So it is understandable that people would think
paleosols are an open-and-shut case. However, it is only when we consider an alternative
interpretive framework and examine the field examples in detail that we find things
are not as they are said to be.

Thus, we first need to consider the place of paleosols within an alternative geological
framework—one based on the biblical record. There are two periods when soils
would be present on the earth:

Soils would exist in the pre-Flood period. However, it is doubtful that
any soils from before the Flood would have been preserved through that cataclysm.
Most likely they would have been destroyed.18–20 Nor is there conclusive
geological evidence for the existence of pre-Flood paleosols.

Soils would form
in the post-Flood period and we see soils everywhere today. There would
have been rapid development of soil profiles at the end of the Flood as soil-forming
reactions would have been accelerated when the land surface first emerged and air
was drawn into the exposed layers. Also, the drainage of floodwaters through the
surface layers would have caused rapid leeching of fine material and ionic species
from one horizon to another. In fact, specific horizons of soil formation are identified
in the stratigraphic record in eastern Australia where ‘deep weathering of
planation surfaces’ occurred.21
Such unique windows of soil formation may well have been associated with geological
processes in the very last phase of draining floodwaters. Finally, after the Flood,
normal weathering would have formed soils on the post-Flood land surface within
years.

Soils that formed at the end of the Flood and at the beginning of the post-Flood
period could have been buried by subsequent geological processes such as flooding,
volcanism, and wind blown processes. These would be true paleosols. In fact, the
whole idea of paleosols was first developed by geomorphologists and soil scientists
to explore soils in the Quaternary. The study of these post-Flood soils was then
extended throughout geologic time to more ancient rocks based on the assumption
of uniformitarianism.22

A good place to look for a true paleosol is where a landslide has occurred at a
road cutting. Because the government builds and maintains roads, money is readily
available to clear away the debris, and the slide makes the news, so it is well
documented. At such a location we can see the soil profile in section where the
road crews have cut away the debris. However, the colluvium (slide debris) needs
to be thick enough to isolate the former surface from modern soil-forming processes,
typically a couple of metres or more. One important point to make about such paleosols
is that their status as a paleosol has been historically established.

Meert’s ‘paleosol’ example

Let’s look at Meert’s paleosol (Figure 1), which supposedly refutes
the global Flood. There would be no question among most creationists that the Cambrian
sandstone in Meert’s picture is a Flood deposit. Most creationists would also
interpret the granite as a Flood rock although some would possibly consider it to
have formed during Creation Week. The way the photograph has been annotated with
lines depicting the contact between the ‘soil’ and rock could give the
impression that this is a tight case for a paleosol. But we would not expect the
material in the photograph to be a soil horizon. (Even if the granite formed during
Creation Week, which would mean there was enough time to form soil in the pre-Flood
era, we would not expect the soil to remain in place during the Flood). We will
see that, not only is it not a soil horizon, but this particular example
has more problems than most, and Meert would have been better served to select one
that could have been more plausible.

Look more closely at the outcrop photographed by Meert along Missouri State Highway
67. Of course, it is not possible to positively identify rocks from a photo at such
a distance. One can’t clearly see minerals or textures, or easily discriminate
between rock, lichen, mould and shadow. It would be preferable to visually inspect
the outcrop. However, at the bottom of the outcrop in the photo we can see a small
exposure of pale-coloured rock. It has a granular texture but does not show any
clear fabric (e.g. layers or cross-bedding). We can accept that it is granite as
Meert has labelled it. Sitting on the Butler Hill Granite on an uneven contact (marked
by a line, but otherwise not a particularly obvious contact) is a material of similar
colour and texture. However it appears to be loose and friable. To the left there
are a few larger clasts scattered on the surface. There does not appear to be any
horizontal layers or horizons in this loose material. This material is labelled
‘Paleosol’ on the photo and appears to be about half a metre thick (judging
from the height of the plants). Sitting on this ‘loose’ material on
a distinct, straight, horizontal contact is a thin exposure of a slightly darker
rock about a metre thick at the most. It is labelled ‘Lamotte Sandstone’
and seems to have a thin (5 cm) horizontal bedding, suggesting it was deposited
from flowing water. The apparent bedding also suggests that the strata have not
been significantly tilted or disturbed since being deposited. Grass and small plants
are growing on top of the sandstone. It is not possible to identify the soil layer
in which they are growing but it must be quite thin.

Figure 2. A hypothetical soil profile. The A horizon has mineral
particles mixed with finely divided organic matter that produces a dark colour.
The B horizon is enriched in clay minerals, oxides and hydroxides removed from the
overlying A horizon, and is lighter in colour. The solum or true soil is represented
by the A and B horizons. The C horizon is largely unaffected by the soil forming
processes and may be produced by chemical weathering of the underlying bedrock,
or deposited by water or ice or volcanic activity. Its colour may vary. The R horizon
is unweathered bedrock.

Assessing Meert’s claim

Anyone wishing to understand paleosols first needs a basic understanding of modern
soils and soil forming processes. Soils can develop from bedrock (such as hardened
lava) as it weathers or from unconsolidated sediments.23
Most soils have three main horizons (layers) identified as A, B, and C horizons
(Figure 2).23 The A horizon is found at the soil surface
and is described as topsoil by most people. It is usually somewhat dark in colour
due to additions of organic carbon from decaying plants. The B horizon is directly
below the A horizon and has experienced leaching into or out of the horizon.23 B horizons tend to be lighter coloured than A horizons
and browner than C horizons. In mature soils, the B horizon is typified by increased
amounts of clay due to migration of clay from the A horizon. Clay films can be found
in the B horizon which indicate clay movement into this horizon from above. The
C horizon is usually weathered parent material.

The three main field features used to interpret a paleosol are root traces, soil
horizons, and soil structures. Additional complications associated with the way
the ‘paleosol’ fits into the rock sequences also need to be considered.24

The first point about the alleged paleosol in Figure 1, which Meert described as
an ‘excellent example of a well developed paleosol’, is that there is
no reference to any root traces. The photo is too distant to distinguish them and
their existence or otherwise is not mentioned in the text. In other words, the first
and ‘most diagnostic feature’25
of a paleosol is not addressed. However, even when root traces are described for
claimed paleosols (ones clearly from Flood deposits) the roots are often simply
interpreted from plant fragments, or even from empty tubular cavities interpreted
as root trace fossils.26 These features
can be just as easily interpreted as the product of processes consistent with the
Flood framework, such as plant material being transported into place, or water escape
cavities.

The second and most important thing to notice about this ‘excellent example’
is that there is no evidence of any soil profile development. The alleged paleosol
has the same colour as the granite from which it has been derived, and at best could
be described as decomposed granite. There is no hint of any development of either
a B horizon (with the addition of clay or precipitates due to leaching) or of an
A horizon (with the addition of organic carbon).

The third field characteristic used to interpret paleosols is soil structure. Soil
structures appear massive or hackly at first sight.27
Presumably Meert used this characteristic as his criteria for interpreting the paleosol
in Figure 1. However, just because a geological horizon is loose and friable does
not mean that it developed by subaerial weathering over a long time. There are other
plausible ways of explaining this characteristic within a framework consistent with
the biblical Flood, as we will see.

Thus, there is no indisputable diagnostic evidence in the photograph to support
Meert’s claim that the unconsolidated material is a well developed paleosol.
In other words, just because someone calls something a paleosol and labels it as
such does not mean it really is.

Rock sequences

Apart from the three main field features discussed, there are other complications
that need to be considered and these have to do with the way paleosols fit into
the rock sequences.28 When we consider
the sequence of events imposed on the geology of the area by Meert’s claim
we can see that the idea of a paleosol is even more problematic. This is because
of the types of rocks involved. Let’s think of the implications of Meert’s
idea. The sequence of steps required under a uniformitarian framework is illustrated
in Figure 3 and outlined below:

Figure 3. Sequence of geological processes needed to produce and
preserve a paleosol on Precambrian granite within a uniformitarian framework.

1. Granitic magma intruded the country rock (which is now no longer present) forming
and filling a large magma chamber, which eventually cooled to form a granite pluton.
(Uniformitarians generally believe plutons form at considerable depth within the
continental crust and took millions of years to cool. These misconceptions have
been addressed in a number of articles about the formation of granites.29–32)

2. The overlying country rock (perhaps tens of kilometres thick) was slowly and
completely eroded away by normal subaerial weathering processes until the granite
pluton was exposed. For the whole of this period of weathering, a soil layer was
continuously being produced at the surface and continuously being removed.

3. The land was then inundated by water which deposited sand (which later turned
into sandstone) on top of the soil layer. The bedding in the sandstone indicates
that the water was flowing and very energetic.

4. Finally, the sandstone was weathered away by subaerial processes until the small
metre-thick section observed in the road cut today is all that is left.

Step 3 is the one that presents a major problem for Joe Meert’s paleosol claim.
How could flowing water, energetic enough to carry volumes of sand and produce horizontal
flat bedding not remove the soil—a thin surface layer, which is friable and
loose? Why wasn’t the granite washed clean like the rock outcrops we see jutting
into the sea at the coast? What sort of amazing process could have preserved this
soil layer on the granite in the midst of fast-flowing current of water? It seems
that Meert’s choice of an ‘excellent example of a well developed paleosol’
is not helpful for his argument.

A more plausible example?

A more plausible example of a paleosol, at least from a rock-sequence point of view,
is in a basalt exposure on the Mapleton-Maleny plateau, Queensland, Australia (Figure
4).33 Here we see a series of basalt
flows with red earthy horizons between them, which have been interpreted as ancient
soils that have been buried by subsequent lava flows. The thickness of one ‘soil’
in particular has been interpreted as indicating that ‘there was a considerable
time gap (probably thousands of years) between the eruption of one flow and the
next.’

Figure 4. Line drawing of alleged ‘old soil layers’
between basalt flows on the Mapleton-Maleny Plateau, Queensland, Australia. Compare
the flat topography of the ‘old soil layers’ with the present hilly
landscape (from Willmott and Stevens).40

At least the sequence of events required to produce such a ‘soil’ layer
is feasible, unlike those in Meert’s example above. The first basalt flow
could have been deposited subaerially. Then, over time, the basalt surface could
have weathered into a soil layer as shown. And finally, a subsequent basalt flow
could have flowed across the land and covered the soil. This rock sequence is at
least plausible.

The basalt plateau has been ‘dated’ as Late Oligocene, which places
it late in geological history. The basalt plateau has also been extensively dissected
by broad valleys suggesting that it was eroded during the last phase of the Flood
by the considerable volumes of floodwaters still receding from the continent. Thus,
from a Flood perspective we would expect the basalt to be a Flood deposit and the
friable horizon would not be a true, subaerially weathered soil.

When we examine the alleged paleosol in the field we find that it is simply a thick
horizon of loose, friable, material. There is no evidence of root traces within
it. Neither is there an A or B horizon. The evidence needed to convince us that
the alleged soil is a soil is lacking. But there is more. First, if the thick friable
horizon had been a soil layer before the subsequent eruption, we would expect to
find a baked zone immediately under the basalt flow in the ‘old soil layer’,
but none is present. Second, note the difference in topography between the present
landscape and the landscape of the ‘old soil layer’. The present landscape
has a significant vertical relief—it is a hilly terrain. Yet the old soil
layers are straight, horizontal and parallel across the plateau. How could thousands
or tens of thousands of years of weathering produce such a thick layer of soil without
producing any topographical relief? Thus, even though the setting at Mapleton-Maleny
has a better chance than Meert’s, it still does not make the grade as a real
paleosol.

A Flood interpretation

How did the loose, friable layer form beneath the sandstone under the granite as
shown in Meert’s photograph? Can Flood geology provide a plausible answer?
Of course. This friable layer of material is not a ‘troubling’ problem
for young-earth geology. One simple Flood scenario is illustrated in Figure 5 and
described as follows:

Figure 5. Sequence of geological processes needed to produce and
preserve a paleosol on Precambrian granite within a biblical Flood framework.

1. During the first half of the global Flood, as a consequence of tectonic movements,
granitic magma intruded the country rock (which is now no longer present) forming
and filling a large magma chamber and eventually cooling to form a granite pluton.
The intrusion need not have been particularly deep, nor did it need to cool slowly
to produce the granitic texture.29,32

2. Later, still during the first half of the Flood, water flowing rapidly over the
land eroded the country rock, exposed the granite, and deposited the sandstone on
the granite.

3. In the second half of the Flood, water receding from the continent eroded the
sedimentary strata leaving only the thin sandstone layer in this area.34–36

4. After the Flood, the granite at the interface decomposed as a result of water
pooling at the interface.37 The
sandstone would be permeable and readily allow precipitation to flow through it
to the interface. The granite would act as an impermeable barrier and cause the
water to pool. Perhaps underground channels formed in particular areas as routes
for the removal of the water from the landscape. Also, oxygen and organic acids
would penetrate to the interface because the sandstone layer is so thin at this
point. These are particularly aggressive in breaking down the minerals in the rocks,
especially the more susceptible minerals in the granite such as biotite and amphibole,
leaving the more resistant minerals such as quartz and feldspar.

This is a simple, plausible model and does not invoke any miraculous processes to
keep the ‘soil’ layer intact as needed in Meert’s paleosol hypothesis.
A similar model can be applied to the loose, friable layers between the basalts
on the Mapleton-Maleny plateau. In fact, the disintegration of the basalt in situ
would have been much more rapid because heat from the basalt flows would have accelerated
the chemical reactions. Thus, these two examples of paleosols are not troubling
to Flood geology. Instead of paleosols, the friable horizons only have a superficial
appearance of soil—they are pseudosols.

In the uniformitarian literature there could be thousands of geological horizons
which have been interpreted as paleosols. In fact, the whole paleosol methodology
assumes the uniformitarian paradigm and is geared to interpret paleosols throughout
the stratigraphic record. Although paleosols are common in the Quaternary they are
rare in the earlier rocks and this makes sense within the biblical Flood framework
and a post-Flood boundary in the late Cainozoic. It is not consistent with the idea
of uniformitarianism which holds that recent geologic processes have applied through
all geologic time.

Most geologists have no insight into the biblical Flood framework and so are not
alert to field clues which would discriminate between a true paleosol and a pseudosol.
It would be an interesting (and almost endless) exercise to examine a wider range
of alleged paleosols and reinterpret them within the Flood paradigm. Froede3 and Kleveberg and Bandy4
have addressed many of the issues on the topic and provide a good foundation for
further field work.

The uniformitarian claims about paleosols are similar to their claims about paleokarst.
It was shown by Silvestru that alleged paleokarst in the Pre-Cenozoic is not karst
at all, but pseudo-karst.38 True
karstification occurred in a very specific window geologically—a window that
is best explained from a Flood geology perspective.39
In the same way, soil formation from a Flood perspective fits into a very small
window which can provide a great tool for field geologists to properly interpret
the stratigraphic record.

Conclusion

Joe Meert’s revised figure.

The presence of a loose, friable layer between the Butler Hill Granite and the Lamotte
Sandstone in a road cut on Missouri State Highway 67 represents no ‘strike’
against the biblical Flood or young-earth creationism. Neither does the alleged
‘old soil layer’ on the Mapleton-Maleny Plateau, Queensland, Australia.
Rather than an ‘anathema’ to young-earth creationists, when we look
at the field evidence from a biblical perspective, we find it fits the biblical
framework much better than the uniformitarian one. The alleged soils did not form
by subaerial weathering over a long time, but by in situ ‘weathering’
during and after the global Flood. In the final analysis, unless it has been historically
attested, the concept of a paleosol is merely an interpretation, not an observed
scientific fact.

Addendum

In his case against ‘young-earth creationism’, Meert used Figure 1,
above, as the prime exhibit of a ‘paleosol’. Following publication of
this Journal of Creation article, Meert changed the image on his web page
(reproduced here). He reduced the width of the photo to about 57% to correct a scaling
error he made on the original gif image. He also changed the position of the lines
used to delineate the alleged ‘paleosol’. These lines now omit the ‘scree’
(loose debris) associated with the larger clasts on the left. Even in this 200 dpi
image, these clasts are clearly visible and I noted them in the above article. He
has also changed the label from paleosol to ‘Regolith and Paleosol’,
backing away from the claim that all the loose material was once a soil.

None of Meert’s changes affects the arguments in the above article or the
conclusion. In fact, Meert himself now admits that this picture was not a good example.
He says that his photo was not intended to document the paleosol and that he will
take some better photos next time he visits the site. That won’t help because
this loose material does not represent a paleosol. Nothing in the example Meert
has presented represents any sort of challenge to the biblical Flood.

This exchange illustrates how to respond to such anti-creationist challenges. It
is important to ignore the bluff and bluster, and carefully examine the evidence.
When we do, the supposed problems disappear and those who are making the charges
frequently change their story.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Peter Klevberg and Rick Bandy for input, feedback and suggestions
on this paper.

Oard, M.J., Vertical tectonics and the
drainage of floodwater: a model for the middle and late diluvian period—part
I, CRSQ38(1):3–17, 2001. Return to text.

Oard, M.J., Vertical tectonics and the drainage of floodwater:
a model for the middle and late diluvian period—part II, CRSQ
38(2):79–95, 2001. Return to text.

Alternatively, the loose friable material upon the granite could
have resulted initially from water facilitating convective cooling of the pluton,
as well as post-Flood lateral groundwater movement. These alternative scenarios
would need to be tested in the field by carefully examining the outcrop (rather
than a low resolution photograph). It would be necessary to check the paleohydraulic
information in the sandstone and determine whether there is incorporation of granite
material or soil clasts into the sandstone. Return to text.

Manna from heaven? Because this site and the information it contains is free, you might think so. However, lots of hard work went into producing it. Your gifts help to produce this ‘manna’ for others. Support this site